HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > Nashville Predators
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

State Senate votes to ban income tax in Tennessee

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-09-2011, 07:36 PM
  #26
Gnashville
Never trade Weber
 
Gnashville's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 4,577
vCash: 500
Taxes always goes up never down no matter what your told. Deep budget cuts aren't "Cuts" either it's just not additional funding to wasteful programs. It's good to ban the thing forever. My horn was worn out the last time anyways.

Gnashville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 07:50 PM
  #27
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 44,039
vCash: 500
Without divulging my stance on the issue, moving to ban a non-existent tax isn't really a "good" thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a time wasting show to shore up the base of a politician or politicians. It's good for them in that sense, and every politician who is successful at any level does the same thing.

People might say that voting on a ban will keep an income tax that doesn't currently exist from ever existing. The trouble with that is the ban can be repealed. If there were ever the votes to actually pass an state income tax I would imagine the votes for repeal would be there, too. This ban is basically the same sort of for-show tactics we saw earlier on a national level when the House of Representatives moved to repeal the health care bill knowing without a doubt that, even in the extremely unlikely event the Senate voted and passed it, the White House would veto. That repeal wasn't because they thought it would actually happen. It was to show those who elected them that they at least tried as much as they could to fulfill a promise they made knowing it would be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. It's the ebb and flow of politics.

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 08:56 PM
  #28
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
Without divulging my stance on the issue, moving to ban a non-existent tax isn't really a "good" thing. It isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a time wasting show to shore up the base of a politician or politicians. It's good for them in that sense, and every politician who is successful at any level does the same thing.

People might say that voting on a ban will keep an income tax that doesn't currently exist from ever existing. The trouble with that is the ban can be repealed. If there were ever the votes to actually pass an state income tax I would imagine the votes for repeal would be there, too. This ban is basically the same sort of for-show tactics we saw earlier on a national level when the House of Representatives moved to repeal the health care bill knowing without a doubt that, even in the extremely unlikely event the Senate voted and passed it, the White House would veto. That repeal wasn't because they thought it would actually happen. It was to show those who elected them that they at least tried as much as they could to fulfill a promise they made knowing it would be an extremely difficult, if not impossible, task. It's the ebb and flow of politics.
We do have an income tax. the hall tax. one of the bills banning the income tax would do away with this tax.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...worries-gtown/

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:11 PM
  #29
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
Depends on the area, but around Nashville it's just shy of 10%.
But, as I remember, local folks pay for it by having a poor education system. Fortunately, I made enough to avoid the public schools for my kids.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:12 PM
  #30
Nitrous Mafia
Registered User
 
Nitrous Mafia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On Lot
Country: United States
Posts: 2,580
vCash: 500
(((((((leaves thread quickly)))))))

Nitrous Mafia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:15 PM
  #31
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
But, as I remember, local folks pay for it by having a poor education system. Fortunately, I made enough to avoid the public schools for my kids.
school system is fine in some areas around here.

I find it ironic that someone who talks about how sales tax is a repressive tax for the poor is happy that he made enough $$ to go the private school route. if you were taxed on more of your income , perhaps you wouldn't have had enough to do that.

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:23 PM
  #32
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
school system is fine in some areas around here.

I find it ironic that someone who talks about how sales tax is a repressive tax for the poor is happy that he made enough $$ to go the private school route. if you were taxed on more of your income , perhaps you wouldn't have had enough to do that.
Only answer I have for you is from Luke 12:49

To whom much is given is much required.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:43 PM
  #33
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 44,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
We do have an income tax. the hall tax. one of the bills banning the income tax would do away with this tax.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news...worries-gtown/
Wasn't aware of the Hall tax. Thanks for the link. My point wasn't necessarily that this is good or bad as far as policy. I was just taking comments that were posted and trying to put it into how I think it might be happening in the context of process. Nothing I say about how or why a bill is introduced, voted on, rejected, or passed is really credible. Just theory. Sorry I enjoy politics. It's an interesting game.

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:49 PM
  #34
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
Only answer I have for you is from Luke 12:49

To whom much is given is much required.
Not going there. Not going to deal with biblical perspectives of taxation or post my views of your view of that verse. It is inappropriate in this forum, imo..
nothing personal.

if you want to discuss this via pm, I would be delighted. It is just not something that I will do here. I do have strong views of my stewardship and it sounds like you do also.


Last edited by predfan98: 03-09-2011 at 10:04 PM. Reason: etc
predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 09:50 PM
  #35
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
Wasn't aware of the Hall tax. Thanks for the link. My point wasn't necessarily that this is good or bad as far as policy. I was just taking comments that were posted and trying to put it into how I think it might be happening in the context of process. Nothing I say about how or why a bill is introduced, voted on, rejected, or passed is really credible. Just theory. Sorry I enjoy politics. It's an interesting game.
I enjoy these discussions also. I wasn't aware of the hall tax until I was told I had to pay it.


Last edited by predfan98: 03-09-2011 at 09:51 PM. Reason: change
predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-09-2011, 10:01 PM
  #36
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 44,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
I enjoy these discussions also. I wasn't aware of the hall tax until I was told I had to pay it.
I enjoy them, too. I won't bring up my political affiliations in them if I can help myself. I'll be honest, I don't keep up with local politics as much as I should lately. I'm more interested in national and international politics and current events, but the process is basically the same. That's why I'm not taking one side or the other in this particular discussion, but otherwise I'd rather not my comments on hockey-related topics be swayed by my politics.

I will say that I firmly believe that people who pay the most taxes have more right to complain about taxes than someone like me. That isn't to say I agree or disagree with a progressive tax system. I just prefer to keep my mouth shut until I know can empathize with all parties (or until I know more).

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2011, 01:00 AM
  #37
Roman Yoshi
Ellis too short
 
Roman Yoshi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Franklin, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 4,678
vCash: 500
I am of the opinion that the government fails at pretty much anything financially... does other good things managing money was never a strong suit... so this is a good thing. The less money they have, the less they can **** up.

Now eliminate the inheritance tax on everybody. Most ludicrous tax ever implemented.

Roman Yoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2011, 08:24 AM
  #38
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joetimo View Post
I am of the opinion that the government fails at pretty much anything financially... does other good things managing money was never a strong suit... so this is a good thing. The less money they have, the less they can **** up.

Now eliminate the inheritance tax on everybody. Most ludicrous tax ever implemented.
I don't have the same opinion about government. If the government were allowed to act like a business, it might be different but it can't. Take the example of military bases. Clearly we have too many but because closing one affects a representative and two senators there has to be a convoluted process of recommendation and then the fight over the recommendation. Same thing just happened with the recent fuel tanker decision - some of the decision was a function of where the tanker should be built and not necessarily which was the better design. It's always more complicated than it appears.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2011, 08:28 AM
  #39
darth5
Rowsdower!
 
darth5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Smashville, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 2,406
vCash: 500
I vote my mind and conscience, owing no allegiance to any so called 'party.' My grandfather always said, "Vote the man, not the ticket" (This was in the 70s when we had few women in office so ladies, please don't take offense.)

I would wager most of you want the services your state and local government helps provide and regulate, like clean water and affordable energy, roads, schools, law enforcement, fire protection, National Guard for emergencies and national service, etc. We do have to have revenue for those services. I never would claim the government is efficient--it has to be watched like a hawk, but at the same time it cannot be run as a business as it serves the common good, where there won't ever be a profit motive.

Think back on how venal and corrupt our state politicians have been. Anybody remember Blanton, Sundquist? Sadly we seem to have a penchant for electing fools here.

darth5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2011, 10:51 AM
  #40
utmfisher19
Registered User
 
utmfisher19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Nashville, Tn
Country: United States
Posts: 926
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to utmfisher19 Send a message via MSN to utmfisher19 Send a message via Yahoo to utmfisher19
Quote:
Originally Posted by predfan98 View Post
school system is fine in some areas around here.

I find it ironic that someone who talks about how sales tax is a repressive tax for the poor is happy that he made enough $$ to go the private school route. if you were taxed on more of your income , perhaps you wouldn't have had enough to do that.
That is not true at all. If everyone that can afford to send their kids to private school is taxed more, that means everyone (in that category) has less take home pay.

Therefore, if your theory is true, then no one would have enough money to send their kids to private school. Instead, with the rich being taxed more (based on the theory that the $$ is worth less to the people who make more), private schools would lower their tuition. As will the prices of houses, land value, etc.

utmfisher19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2011, 11:11 AM
  #41
ffwrx
Don't Blink!
 
ffwrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Greenbrier, TN
Country: United States
Posts: 383
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bburton86 View Post
(((((((leaves thread quickly)))))))
HA! Are you kidding? :puts the popcorn in the microwave:

ffwrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-10-2011, 11:59 AM
  #42
triggrman
HFBoards Sponsor
 
triggrman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 17,313
vCash: 500
I was more pointing out that you're not taxed on every dollar you make locally now, savings was just an example, I understand, there are certain investment products you are taxed on. Right now, I'm not taxed on the money I have to use to pay my hockey fees. I'm sure it might be built into the cost somewhere but I don't pay a sales tax on it, nor do I have to pay and income tax on that part of my money. If they pass an income tax, that money is taxed as well.

triggrman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2011, 09:32 AM
  #43
kakemono
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 869
vCash: 500
Without reading the bill, wouldn't this have something to do with the amount of votes needed to pass a bill compared to the number of votes needed to repeal a bill?

Something like 1/2 to pass but 2/3 to repeal? It will be harder in the future to implement now that it is in the constitution.

kakemono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2011, 09:59 AM
  #44
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kakemono View Post
Without reading the bill, wouldn't this have something to do with the amount of votes needed to pass a bill compared to the number of votes needed to repeal a bill?

Something like 1/2 to pass but 2/3 to repeal? It will be harder in the future to implement now that it is in the constitution.
Actually the vote was just the state Senate passing the amendment, it still needs to be passed by the state house and then the state house and senate again next year by 2/3rds margin and then you get to vote on it in 2014 before it becomes a part of the constitution. Quite a long way yet to go and not necessarily a given yet.


Last edited by lstcyr: 03-11-2011 at 10:07 AM. Reason: added bolding
lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-11-2011, 11:45 AM
  #45
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 44,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kakemono View Post
Without reading the bill, wouldn't this have something to do with the amount of votes needed to pass a bill compared to the number of votes needed to repeal a bill?

Something like 1/2 to pass but 2/3 to repeal? It will be harder in the future to implement now that it is in the constitution.
I just recently started studying the TN constitution, so I'll try to answer your question. Keep in mind any of this could be wrong...

After the long process required for a bill to go from introduction to a vote, it needs a simple majority (50 votes from the House of Reps or 17 from the Senate, depending on where it originated) It's then engrossed (basically it's re-typed without errors), and sent to next house for a vote. If there are any amendments to the bill then it has to be sent back to the originating house for a vote on the amended bill.

For an amendment it's a bit different. A resolution calling for the amendment has to be passed by the general assembly. The wording of the bill has to also be read. This has to be done three different days, and a vote is taken each time with an absolute majority needed each day (absolute majority basically means that you need a majority of votes in support. Votes not cast are counted as no votes.) It then has to be published for at least six months before the next legislative election, after which is has to go through the three days/three votes process again with a 2/3rds majority needed this time. If it passes all of that it goes on the ballot as a referendum in the next gubernatorial election where it needs a greater number of yes votes than one half of the votes cast for governor.

A repeal of the amendment would have to go through the same process. Oh and that's just the legislative process. There is also the convention method...

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2011, 01:50 PM
  #46
belle
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 117
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lstcyr View Post
How? A progressive income tax always beats a sales tax on consumption. At least as far as the common person is concerned. No income tax is always better for the wealthy.
This common person prefers no Income Tax. I lived in the State of Kentucky and paid Income Tax. I live in Tennessee and enjoy NO Income Tax. Crazy thing. I grew up in Kentucky. I love Kentucky. But professionally, I choose Tennesse and just visit Kentucky.

BTW, my kids went to public school. They succeeded nicely, thank you very much. This parent thought it was important. So they studied and participated.

I'm sure your kids are succeeding in school; their parents think it is important. In either case, it has little to do with the tax system.


Last edited by belle: 03-12-2011 at 02:06 PM.
belle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-12-2011, 10:16 PM
  #47
lstcyr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,969
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by belle View Post
I'm sure your kids are succeeding in school; their parents think it is important. In either case, it has little to do with the tax system.
I'd beg to differ. While I believe a large portion of success in school is the importance parents place on it, the quality of the school system has a large effect also. Grew up in a state where education was valued. I know what a good school system looks like. I now live in Virginia and can assure you that my kids would have gone to public school in this state due to the high quality of the school system. Didn't feel that way in Nashville. I believe it's all in the expectation of the community.

lstcyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2011, 09:05 AM
  #48
deanwormer
Registered User
 
deanwormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nashville
Country: United States
Posts: 966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
It stems from Jeremy Bentham's philosophy of diminishing marginal utility (utility here meaning a measurement of satisfaction).
~snip~
If the happiness (utility) created by a lessening of tax burdens on those who make less is greater than the loss of utility suffered by taxing those with more at a higher rate then you set the tax rates based on income, increasing tax rates as income increases (progressive tax system).
/boring lecture
Oh, thanks, drag up bad memories from 30 years ago...

Yes, I get the theory, but my problem with it is it take RESPONSIBILITY out of the equation. I think all citizens should participate in paying for the services and privileges they receive. I also tend to think that it's not really about those that can "afford" to pay more should, but those that have been able to use the privileges and opportunities gov't provides have the responsibility to contribute proportionally to maintaining what we have and improving it for the future - which, done in ways other than taxing income, still has those that can "afford" to pay more paying more, it just ties the payments/contributions to how people actually obtain and use those benefits - or in Bentham's terms - the utility they receive.

deanwormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2011, 12:27 PM
  #49
TMI
Mod Supervisor
 
TMI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 44,039
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by deanwormer View Post
Oh, thanks, drag up bad memories from 30 years ago...

Yes, I get the theory, but my problem with it is it take RESPONSIBILITY out of the equation. I think all citizens should participate in paying for the services and privileges they receive. I also tend to think that it's not really about those that can "afford" to pay more should, but those that have been able to use the privileges and opportunities gov't provides have the responsibility to contribute proportionally to maintaining what we have and improving it for the future - which, done in ways other than taxing income, still has those that can "afford" to pay more paying more, it just ties the payments/contributions to how people actually obtain and use those benefits - or in Bentham's terms - the utility they receive.
Just to play devil's advocate here... responsibility is an interesting word. Isn't it true that a person with less money has a much more difficult time meeting responsibilities than a wealthy person? For example, doesn't a poorer person have to struggle in order to meet the responsibility he or she has to their children (food, clothes, shelter, transportation, medical, etc)? With that said, doesn't it make sense to lessen a social responsibility on a person who is having a hard time meeting parenting responsibilities? In a perfect world only those who can afford to financially will have kids, but in reality we are humans. It's what we are wired to do. Is it not more beneficial for a society to have a tax system established that does as little as possible to create roadblocks for those trying to raise families? If so then a set sales tax isn't the option, but a progressive tax based on income is...


:takes off liberal mask:

TMI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-13-2011, 02:28 PM
  #50
predfan98
Registered User
 
predfan98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThirdManIn View Post
Just to play devil's advocate here... responsibility is an interesting word. Isn't it true that a person with less money has a much more difficult time meeting responsibilities than a wealthy person? For example, doesn't a poorer person have to struggle in order to meet the responsibility he or she has to their children (food, clothes, shelter, transportation, medical, etc)? With that said, doesn't it make sense to lessen a social responsibility on a person who is having a hard time meeting parenting responsibilities? In a perfect world only those who can afford to financially will have kids, but in reality we are humans. It's what we are wired to do. Is it not more beneficial for a society to have a tax system established that does as little as possible to create roadblocks for those trying to raise families? If so then a set sales tax isn't the option, but a progressive tax based on income is...


:takes off liberal mask:
just playing devil's advocate here also.....

responsibility..........who gets to define it? the people paying or the people spending? society sure can't decide--- and if you choose to let society decide, does the majority rule?

TINSTAAFL.............robert heinlein.

predfan98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.